Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 18, 2014 12:30am-1:01am PDT

12:30 am
important part of what i want to see happen and again, i want to express the importance of preservation which is my focusian as supervisor. >> i would like to work with your office to create some legislations around some of the points that you are making. supervisor kim? >> thank you. i will just say a couple of things. we've never built enough affordable housing that's why our lottery list is heartbreakingly long. i can't tell you how many lines i have observed and seen so many housing application and seen a thousand people lining up for 40 slots, 80 slots. if we don't build any affordable housing at all,
12:31 am
those 80 or 40 units, those families are not getting housed. the answer to guaranteeing more housing is not by stopping to build affordable housing. we have to continue to build but we have to fund the programs that are going to ensure that people are are getting the housing they need and they get the help to fill out those applications. those applications are difficult. we should have one housing application. granted all the different developments have different income requirements, age requirements, etc, but we should have a common application. we should make it easier for people to apply and more funding organizations to help with housing application. it's amazing when people get affordable housing. it's amazing when a family that have been in a shelter that got housing. it was amazing to me that a young fill ipino
12:32 am
mom got housing on 4th street. it was amazing to me, 1005 market, scared every month that his rent is going to increase every month and he's going to end up homeless. he's now in soma. a man who applied to represent district 6 in our citizen's advisory committee, he's now at eva in a bmr unit. it is true that so many folks don't get in, but there are some that get in. i know people on the street that get into affordable housing. the answer is not to not build affordable housing. that's why we want to set 30 percent. the last thing i want to say, this is not an either or, this is not about housing and
12:33 am
building. i never want to fight against rehabbing public housing. that is a really important part of our housing portfolio and we have to get those vacant units. if we make it an either or, it will be an either or. we make choices everyday, every month and we have to make it a choice that this is a priority. that's why revenue is so important. so thank you again. mr. chair. >> can we have a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> this item is a hearing item. next week we'll be hearing the ordinance that can get amended. >> can we have a motion to continue this item? >> to continue, okay. >> with no objection we'll pass this. thank you to the
12:34 am
public that came out for this item. [ applause ] >> just to clarify the motion was to continue to the call of the chair in >> yes. for next meeting. >> item no. 12 a proposal for hearing initiateive ordinance planning code. hearing held to consider the propose td initiative ordinance -- >> i think we are going to take a two 2-minute break. so ooifbl -- i believe the
12:35 am
clerk has called item no. 12. we have mr. olson lead from the office of housing. >> good evening, my name is olson lee. a native san franciscans. i have been involved with affordable housing for the past four 4 years in san francisco. with this experience that i can brought to the mayor's office of housing, i have seen sort of the industry of affordable housing grow over that period. what it really takes to build to improve and to maintain affordable housing. so, my presentation will talk a little bit about that context because as one of the earlier commenters said and as you supervisors have talked about, it's about the funding, it's about how we pay for building
12:36 am
affordable housing so that we can continue the business or -- work that many of us have devoted our lives to. i wanted to take the at some point to identify or to clarify the things that the mayor has done on behalf of affordable housing because many of the commenters who came before you expressed the view that this administration doesn't care about affordable housing and two, that hasn't done anything. i want to claire fee -- clarify to the public that the mayor has done a lot more for affordable housing since before he became the mayor of san francisco and prior to becoming a member of the city, he's been involved
12:37 am
in the economic justice movement. he previously sued the housing authority for conditions and he's been a great great supporter of affordable housing. i would like to start my presentation by talking a little bit about what the mayor has done because i think it important because it gives us some context in which to make a decision about how to move forward. so the mayor is most definitely concerned about creating affordable housing and affordable housing for everybody. and so this notion that the mayor doesn't support affordable housing is so far from the truth. i think one of the things and in my career, i was first at the mayor's office of housing and then at the redevelopment agency and back to the mayor's office of housing and as you all know
12:38 am
as supervisors, the governor decided to balance the budget on the backs of redevelopment and in some cases redevelopment didn't do the things that we do in san francisco. now, we heard all the stories about the golf courses, the car dealerships, etc. what this board and what the previous administrations had done in the great compromise was one to allow redevelopment agencies to issue tax increment financing bonds to help complete mosconeey center and in that exchange create taxes for affordable housing and that was supposed to last for a year and we got extended and the financing source for
12:39 am
affordable housing throughout the city overall. why is that important? it's not there anymore. during the period between when the mayor was elected and the supreme court rolled that the legislature within the power for redevelopment agencies. the mayor said you have to fix this. the mayor really went to bat to try to save as much as of our redevelopment activities as possible the commitment to the residents in which those redevelopment neighborhoods are relocated to the affordable housing that are being built in those neighborhoods as well as public facilities. she knows very well that the entrance
12:40 am
bay redevelopment project areas, one of the three legacy project areas that the mayor was -- able to say from our california agency that we needed to save these resources including affordable housing. it's interesting that in our history as a city and we have the requirements of doing affordable housing were set really by state law. and in the state legislation, there was the requirement, the 15 percent affordable and 20 percent of the money going towards affordable housing. the city of san francisco said we are doing that better. within those redevelopment project areas at least the newer ones, that goal in terms of the percentages of the affordable housing from 28-35
12:41 am
percent and one of the key things about that was the question of financing because it did have indeed the tax increment financing in which the redevelopment agency could spend to support affordable housing. there was always the question of land that was available former public land that was traded in the process to ensure there was on going, there was a higher level of affordable housing. but the one thing that redevelopment also did was also stream line development, to facilitate development so that there were certainty in development and that certainty paid for affordable housing. in many of the cases, it was the market rate, it was the development. the non-affordable housing development that would go first generate the tax
12:42 am
increment for which we would later bond and build affordable housing. in light of the fact that redevelopment was going away, we didn't know the extent to which development was going away and out of that sort of concern about what are we going to do for affordable housing, the idea of the housing trust fund came out. the mayor asked for the big tent, got the big tent and got a lot of support from all walks of life in the city to put on the ballot the housing trust fund. the size of the housing trust fund was sized in part to not have an impact on the general fund. it was reflecting the debt service that was being paid, that was being freed up as redevelopment bonds both housing and non-housing bonds
12:43 am
were expiring. so they were trying to minimize the impact on the general fund over all. it was an incredible success. 1.5 billion $1.5 billion over 30 years vment . the only issue between the mayor and all of our needs and wants and desires, it's not enough. but it's something that no other community in california was able to duplicate, has not duplicated to this day and it was a tremendous shot in the arm to continue the work in those redevelopment project areas outside of those redevelopment project areas because we had to pick up, we, the mayor's office of housing orphan redevelopment projects outside of those project areas. this public trust fund made that happen but it was still not enough. we'll talk a little bit more about house the housing trust fund combines with the other
12:44 am
financing that is necessary to try to move the city forward and build affordable housing. so, creating the housing trust fund was not enough for the mayor because the mayor once lived in public housing and as the mayor, he's not going to be satisfied with the condition of public housing. he shares your passion for the public housing. so between, the prior administration that started to help sf but given the trouble status of the housing authority, the mayor had no choice but to end it, not mend it. that's why we are involved in helping the housing authority reposition the housing authority and amend the horrible conditions of that affordable housing. you will see the mayor's seven point plan is not about losing
12:45 am
affordable housing and not an allowing affordable housing to deteriorate over time. our work in terms of the residential demonstration project is a pilot of this national program. it's really a way for the federal governments to try to figure out how do we make public housing better than it was under the federal support because the folks from the dc do not share the passion that the leadership of the board in terms of serving affordable housing so the seven point housing plan will produce 30,000 units over the next 6 years. it does it for a variety of affordability levels to those identified in the earlier slide and for
12:46 am
those slightly above that because given the super heated market today, they are still struggling. the goal of 30,000 units provides affordable units for 70 percent of san franciscans today. so the keypoints of the mayor's plan. eviction prevention. as many talked about the experiences either personally with eviction or evictions from acquaintance and the mayor's seven point plan addresses that with additional funding to assist in eviction prevention. preserving an existing affordable units. somebody else mentioned that we should plan for 7
12:47 am
generations. having been around for 24 years in the field of housing, it feels like 7 generations. but it's about maintaining our affordable housing stock. to your point supervisor breed and i have worked on many of the developments in your district and the need to refinances, refresh them, maintain their affordability. that is something we need to do to maintain that stock of affordable housing because we don't want to lose them to deterioration, we don't want to lose them to financial instability. we need to maintain them over all. we have the down payment system program to help bridge the gap between what people can afford and what is happening in the market. obviously we talked a
12:48 am
little bit about this already. this seven point plan includes revitalizing housing and it's important to the mayor and those residents with public housing units. we want to build more affordable housing and this is something that obviously all of you share as well as all the people that spoke before us. we want to build more affordable housing. we also understand the supply of housing. it's a competition. the competition is based upon how many dollars you have in your pocket and those with the most dollars win. so, if we limit the supply of the housing, then and then the people with the most dollars will win whether it's existing housing or new housing. the other thing we talked about is how do we do this faster. that's part of the working group and sarah talked a little bit about
12:49 am
that and it's not just about focusing solely on the building of new affordable housing but how do we get to finish faster. that's one of the concerns that people have raised, not only the affordable housing developers have had to go through a constant environment or reviews our appeals. that is the concern, the question of how quickly can we bring of product from conception to financing to completion affects sort of the economics of that transaction because of the uncertainty as it relates to it. people are concerned about hitting the market in a timely manner for our affordable developers. it's about minimizing cost because time is cost. time is cost for the market rate developers but it's also about hitting the market when they
12:50 am
can feel they can make the financing work. so what was the affordability challenge? as we talked earlier, over 70 percent of our households in san francisco whether they are currently housed or not feel housing insecurity. so our goal and our mission in the mayor's office of housing community development has tried to create more affordable housing and try to minimize that housing and security for everybody. so what are our housing production needs? obviously, our commission of public housing we serve everybody from no income to 50 percent of median income and it's one of the great benefits of public housing in that you do not need to have income to still be housed. traditional affordable housing, these are the folks that we serve in our traditional affordable housing and these are the people that sort of the job diversity of
12:51 am
san francisco that do aurlt other things that the programmers don't. right? and then the other part is the workforce housing and this is the housing that goes up to 150 percent of median income. these are folks that they still have housing insecurity. they probably can rent, perhaps at the margin, they definitely can't buy at the margin. you know, there was some discussion about people over 120 percent of median income being the one 1 percent and that's really not true. there are working folks like you and me. in fact people who earn a lot less and they have housing insecurity also. so what do we want to do? we want to broaden who we serve
12:52 am
because i think that based upon this housing crisis, we need to broaden who we serve. there are a lot of people who we need to help. we need to grow the pie. this is a theme that people repeated. yes, we need to grow the pie because we need the funding to increase affordable housing production. and we also need to be committed to continuing housing production for all income levels. so, how do we finances affordable housing today? so, right now, again, this is in part because you know, many of the folks in the public echoed a theme that we are not doing anything for affordable housing. i think that, as supervisors you passed the two 2-year budget just recently.
12:53 am
this is from our two 2-year budget. this is what we are going to spend over the next two 2 years for affordable housing. that's not a small budget. i thank you very much for your contributions for making that happen and we will spend it wisely and create as much affordable housing as possible. >> can i have some clarity? >> go ahead, supervisor breed. >> >>supervisor london breed: thank you. mr. lee, is this for this particular 14-15 -fiscal year, you are saying it's 39 percent what? i'm trying to understand the 39 percent number? >> i'm glad you asked the question. 39 percent of the funds i have for affordable housing comes from the market rate development. these are fees paid for whether they are job link fees for office buildings or inclusionary
12:54 am
fees whether they are residential whether they are neighborhood fees including the market octavia fees. they all come into a pot at the mayor's office of housing and we use those funds to build fousing. even with -- affordable housing. even with the passage of the trust fund, the market fees are still 40 percent of my budget on a going forward basis. clearly the housing trust fund will grow over time. but this is a very very large sum of money to build affordable housing with. >>supervisor london breed: so do you know how many units this total equals? >> it various desh varies from unit to unit but off the cuff, it would be,
12:55 am
approximately 320 units. >> and in comparison to, you may not of course have the number of market rates we anticipate to come online for this particular fiscal year in order to do a comparison of what that means in terms of percentage. >> well based upon the mayor's 30,000 unit plan, the number of deeply affordable units were approximately 10,000 of that and 5,000 units were in the middle income. this would be a part of that 1/3 of units that would be affordable for folks at probably close to 60 percent of median and below.
12:56 am
>> okay. >>supervisor jane kim: thank you. i know that one of the concerns that came up was that adding another conditional use authorization process could delay or halt development in market rate units which those impact fees we depend on for affordable housing production. i guess the question i have is do you support conditional use authorization for heights and other variances that we currently have in our planning code that slowdown development and potentially halt production? >> on behalf of the mayor's office. i think the mayor's office wishes the approval process overall would be a smoother process. you know, one of the things that this housing working group has been looking at is this whole question of you know how do
12:57 am
we expedite, because every project is a battle. and it really shouldn't be that way. because we need, as you said, it's not antidevelopment. we need the development both of market rate housing to generate the fees. i think what we've done in this process and we are all for citizens participation and involvement, but we have slowed down the process tremendously. one of the criticisms of san francisco when we are trying to get the legislation through the state legislature was, well they made a mess of it themselves. they have slowed everything down and they don't build housing and why should the state legislature build on that. the city of seattle, comparable to the city of san
12:58 am
francisco, geographically constrained, difficult to develop. they build more housing than we do day in and day out. our 30,000 goal, people think it's a bunch of rhetoric. we are not doing enough, right? it's still not enough. in terms of the requirements where the cu and dr's whatever the thing, we are slowing the creation of the things that we need to solve the problem. so, i think that's what we would really like to be assured of that projects can move forward. that's the whole point of having neighborhood plans, right. that we are going to do neighborhood plans, we are going to fight the battle ones. this is one of the good things about redevelopment. you don't fight the
12:59 am
individual battle every single time. you fight the battle about displacement and about public benefit and affordable housing and when it comes to individual building approvals, it's, it's not without drama but it is a lot smoother process and i recall at one point at the redevelopment agency, i noticed that the mission bay land was more expensive than the land outside of mission bay. i asked the developer why you are paying more for mission bay land? it's a way to get my entitlements and i have certainty and nobody is going to ask for more and we've all agreed to it and we can move forward. i think the whole notion in terms of the cu and certainty process, not everybody wants to negotiate every deal, right. i think the greater certainty for all developers is a good thing.
1:00 am
>> so i think that's a great conversation piece. i have also heard exactly what you talked about is about the certainty that what developers are looking for, not necessarily the fees. mission bay is a great example. we built very close to 30 percent of affordable housing, 35 percent at transbay and yet no slowdown of housing production in those redevelopment area plans. >> so the question is how do we do certainty. how do we create a level of certainty in this process? >> and guarantee affordable housing. it's a question. that is the question. so i think that is something that the city should be looking at. i would argue that actually you know if we are going to say that any cu and any variance slows down the planning process then probably one of the biggest barrier